Smt. Shanti Bai vs Mangilal
2022 Latest Caselaw 13989 MP

                                                       1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                              ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                           SECOND APPEAL No. 349 of 2022

                                 BETWEEN:-
                            1.   SMT. SHANTI BAI W/O PRABHUDAS, AGED
                                 ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
                                 VILLAGE SARKHEDA TAHSIL SHAYMPUR
                                 DISTRICT SEHORE M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            2.   BHAGWANDAS S/O PRABHUDAS, AGED ABOUT
                                 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
                                 SARKHEDA, TAHSIL SHAYMPUR, DISTRICT
                                 SEHORE (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            3.   RAMDAS S/O PRABHUDAS, AGED ABOUT 48
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
                                 SARKHEDA, TAHSIL SHAYMPUR, DISTRICT
                                 SEHORE (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            4.   UTTAMDAS S/O PRABHUDAS, AGED ABOUT 45
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
                                 SARKHEDA, TAHSIL SHAYMPUR, DISTRICT
                                 SEHORE (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            5.   SMT. SADHANA D/O PRABHUDAS, AGED ABOUT
                                 42   YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
                                 VILLAGE SARKHEDA, TAHSIL SHAYMPUR,
                                 DISTRICT SEHORE (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....APPELLANTS
                                 (BY SHRI RAMANUJ CHOUBEY, ADVOCATE)

                                 AND
                            1.   MANGILAL S/O SHRI HEERADAS, AGED ABOUT
                                 85 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE
                                 KUDALI TAHSIL NARSINGHPUR DISTRICT
                                 RAJGARH M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            2.   GANPAT     S/O  MUNNALAL   OCCUPATION:
                                 WRONGLY MENTIONED IN LOWER APPELLATE
                                 COURT AS PRABHULAL R/O VILLAGE KUDALI,
                                 TAHSIL NARSINGHGARH, DISTRICT RAJGARH
                                 (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 11/1/2022
1:16:27 PM
                                                                   2
                            3.          HARIDAS S/O HEERADAS OCCUPATION: NILL
                                        R/O    VILLAGE     KUDALI,     TAHSIL
                                        NARSINGHGARH, DISTRICT RAJGARH (M.P.)
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS


                                      Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                            following:
                                                                   ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of Prabhudas (who was respondent 1 before the first appellate Court) challenging the judgment & decree dated 15.02.1985 passed by Additional District Judge,

Rajgarh in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/1982, which arose out of judgment & decree dated 22.07.1981 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II Narsinghgarh in Civil Suit No. 19-A/78.

2. This second appeal was filed on 04.02.2022 with the delay of 13454 days and no application for condonation of delay was filed alongwith the appeal. Lastly on 20.09.2022, this Court granted time to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to move application for condonation of delay of 13454 days but till today no application has been filed.

3. In view of the aforesaid and looking to the period of delay and further due to non filing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the second appeal is incompetent, therefore, is dismissed as such.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Pallavi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 11/1/2022 1:16:27 PM